[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
avri at ella.com
Tue Mar 29 19:38:36 UTC 2011
But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.
As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open.
On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users."
> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM
>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of?
>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency?
>> with kind regards,
>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about
>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial
>>> volunteer time into the details.
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss